Dear Patrick, Dagmar,
Since someone mentioned the important work by Dikshit, I should point out that he did refer to the concept of Vedic Astrology. But as I pointed out in an earlier mail, this Vedic Astrology is very different from what is generally called Vedic Astrology these days. In the 1968 English translation, the passage I had in mind (Vol.1, p.63) refers to “post-Vedic works on astrology” in contrast to Vedic astrology based on nakṣatras as in the Taittirīya saṃhitā, etc. Since Dikshit’s work first came out in Marathi 1896, the idea of Vedic astrology certainly cannot be said to be new. For those who are not familiar with the historiography of jyotiṣa studies, it is important to bear in mind that some of Dikshit’s ways of classifying what he considered as Vedic astrology and astronomy have been refuted by both Indian and non-Indian scholars since then. For example, under the heading “vedāṅga period” which Dikshit dated to 1400 BC, he would put under the heading of “Yajurveda jyotiṣa” topics such as horoscopic and zodiac concepts such as “lagna" and “meṣa," although these concepts are never found in the the texts he referred to. In fact, most historians today believe the Zodiac with twelve “signs," originated in Babylonia, cannot be dated earlier 5th century BCE with both textual and archeological evidences.
I am aware that the discussants on this thread are not so much interested in the actual content of Vedic astrology or astronomy, but I still think the content should be more carefully scrutinized before one decides whether “Vedic" is the correct label and why it was applied. The Vedic Planetarium that ISKON is currently constructing is an interesting case. As it is explained in their website under “Vedic Science” (
https://tovp.org/vedic-science/), one may find some bewildering claims under the headings “vedic cosmology” and “vedic planetarium” that no serious scholar can subscribe to. For example,
The Temple of the Vedic Planetarium is named as such because within its main dome it will house a 3-dimensional, moving model of the universe according to the Vedic scriptures. This explanation describes the planetary systems and all the universal contents to be in the shape of an incredible chandelier.
It seems to me a futile to debunk every single one of their claims and their indiscriminate use of the Vedic as a label for everything believed to be of scriptural authority.
Bill M. Mak
Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (ISAW)New York University
15 East 84th Street
New York, NY 10028
US
Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
Yoshidahonmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501
Japan
〒606-8501 京都市左京区吉田本町
京都大学人文科学研究所
Tel:+81-75-753-6961
Fax:+81-75-753-6903
Hi Patrick,
One group that always emphasizes "Vedic" in their representations of Indian traditions are the followers of Maharishi (Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Ayurved, etc.), and I believe that this group may have been very influential in the use of the term among practitioners in the West. See
http://www.maharishijyotishprogram.eu/ for their astrology programme.
I am not sure how far back in time their astrology programme goes. I don't know of anyone having specifically analysed their use of "Vedic". Papers on Maharishi Ayurved can be found in
Modern and Global Ayurveda (SUNY Press), edited by Fred Smith and myself.
Best wishes,
Dagmar
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.infoindology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)